|

Team Obama’s various potential paths to 270 electoral votes

Jim Messina, the manager of President Obama’s re-election campaign, outlines five out of more than 40 possible pathways to the minimum number of electoral votes needed for victory in next November’s election.

This video has been distributed among Obama supporters around the country to engender enthusiasm and help raise funds.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7Y-Q9ZY5Ao[/youtube]

 

Share:

8 Comments

  1. Team Obama spent $730 million in 2008. 1 billion is probably a stretch, but I’m sure $800 million is not.

    http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/

    Having Michigan as a default blue is overly presumptuous. Romney’s dad is a former governor. A Detroit Free Press poll from November 20th put Romney and Obama in an exact tie.

    Same thing for New Hampshire, it’s certainly no given for Obama either.

    On the other hand, hopefully they do take those states for granted, which would give the good guys a better chance to win!

  2. Correction – Romney beat Obama in that poll I mentioned.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/21/mitt-romney-obama-michigan-poll_n_1104942.html

    Plus, in 2010 Michigan elected a Republican governor plus 9 out of 15 Reps they sent to Congress were Republicans.

    There is no way that state is anything other than a toss-up.

  3. Mathematicians have calculated that there are about 50 trillion possible combinations of states with electoral votes that add up to 270. (Most are nonsensical, such as those that lump Utah and California as voting for the same candidate.)

    If Obama can find only 40 combinations that make him win, that’s not very promising.

    If you sold each of the 50 trillion combinations for twenty-five cents, you still wouldn’t have enough money to pay off the national debt. Scary.

  4. Dan: Congratulations! You’ve outdone yourself with this latest comment. You apparently don’t even understand your contradiction of your own logic.

    First you tell us that most of the 50 trillion possible combinations that would lead to 270 electoral votes “are nonsensical.”

    Then you tell us that Obama’s re-election prospects are “not very promising” if his campaign can come up with only 40 combinations.

    You completely ignore the fact that the Obama campaign has eliminated the “nonsensical” combinations from its calculations.

    With each succeeding submission here, Dan, you just get loonier and loonier. But then, you’re a right-winger, aren’t you? Moreover you’re one of that rare breed of right-wingers — a self-professed gay man who sides with the political forces that want to oppress him.

  5. The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

    Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. There would no longer be a handful of ‘battleground’ states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in more than 3/4ths of the states that will just be ‘spectators’ and ignored.

    When the bill is enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes– enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538), all the electoral votes from the enacting states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC.

    The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for President. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.

    In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in closely divided Battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA 75%, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%; in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%; in Southern and Border states: AR – 80%,, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and in other states polled: CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%. Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.

    The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states. The bill has been enacted by 9 jurisdictions possessing 132 electoral votes – 49% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

    NationalPopularVote

  6. toto – The National Popular Vote bill is a terrible, if not Unconstitutional, idea.

    It completely destroys the concept of Federalism and states rights which were an important narrative of how our Constitution was established.

    It would change everything, and only for the worse. Ultra-left bankrupt states like California would now have significantly more influence on an election than the traditionally rural states such as Wyoming or Mississippi. Candidates wouldn’t even bother to campaign there, and thus they would get less say. In effect, the country would continue to go down a path of mob rule.

  7. With the Electoral College, and federalism, the Founding Fathers meant to empower the states to pursue their own interest within the confines of the Constitution. The National Popular Vote is an exercise of that power, not an attack upon it.

    The National Popular Vote bill preserves the Electoral College and state control of elections. It changes the way electoral votes are awarded in the Electoral College.

    The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), under which all of a state’s electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state, ensures that the candidates, after the primaries, in 2012 will not reach out to about 76% of the states and their voters. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind.

    More than 2/3rds of the states and people have been just spectators to the presidential elections. That’s more than 85 million voters.

    Policies important to the citizens of ‘flyover’ states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.

    States have the responsibility and power to make all of their voters relevant in every presidential election and beyond.

    Unable to agree on any particular method, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method for selecting presidential electors exclusively to the states by adopting the language contained in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution– “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . .” The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as “plenary” and “exclusive.”

    Federalism concerns the allocation of power between state governments and the national government. The National Popular Vote bill concerns how votes are tallied, not how much power state governments possess relative to the national government. The powers of state governments are neither increased nor decreased based on whether presidential electors are selected along the state boundary lines, or national lines (as with the National Popular Vote).

  8. The National Popular Vote bill would end the disproportionate attention and influence of the “mob” in the current handful of closely divided battleground states, such as Florida, while the “mobs” of the vast majority of states are ignored. 98% of the 2008 campaign events involving a presidential or vice-presidential candidate occurred in just 15 closely divided “battleground” states. 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are non-competitive are ignored, in presidential elections. 9 of the original 13 states are considered “fly-over” now. None of the 10 most rural states (VT, ME, WV, MS, SD, AR, MT, ND, AL, and KY) is a battleground state. Over half (57%) of the events were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia). Similarly, 98% of ad spending took place in these 15 “battleground” states.

    The National Popular Vote bill would end the disproportionate attention and influence of the “mob” in the current handful of closely divided battleground states, such as Florida, while the “mobs” of the vast majority of states are ignored.

    A nationwide presidential campaign, with every vote equal, would be run the way presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as Ohio and Florida, under the state-by-state winner-take-all methods. The big cities in those battleground states do not receive all the attention, much less control the outcome. Cleveland and Miami do not receive all the attention or control the outcome in Ohio and Florida.

    The itineraries of presidential candidates in battleground states (and their allocation of other campaign resources in battleground states) reflect the political reality that every gubernatorial or senatorial candidate knows. When and where every vote is equal, a campaign must be run everywhere.

    FYI, With the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes, it could only take winning a bare plurality of popular votes in the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency — that is, a mere 26% of the nation’s votes.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CAPTCHA Image

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>